W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Named Graphs and Content Negotiation

From: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 18:11:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CADUi7O7QC4avkR0Dcgi=Z90NNXmwj6r6q2sA5a_eNejK=TB5sA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org
Yes, I believe it does.

I can think of at least two cases which are not http URIs, but whose
resolution in practice may produce an http URI for an http proxy
service with the original URI as an argument, and whose dereferencing
is then the dereferencing of the original.  Those two are doi and
lsid.  (Whether a request for Named Graph serialization could be
passed all the way to the proxy might be another question, but it
seems that should be possible in general.)

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good catch.
>
> I propose the following amendment:
>
> This form MUST ONLY be returned when retrieving an Annotation if the
> client explicitly requests a Named Graph serialization, for example
> through the use of HTTP Content Negotiation.  This restriction ...
>
> Does that remove the HTTP protocol restriction sufficiently?
>
> Rob
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:
>> OK, I concede that  [1] seems to slightly discourage the use of Named
>> Graphs, though conceding their utility. Hence, my concern may not be
>> of great impact.  But I am slightly concerned by the tex in the OAX
>> spect:
>>
>> "This form MUST ONLY be returned when dereferencing an Annotation's
>> URI if the client explicitly requests a Named Graph serialization via
>> Content Negotiation. This restriction is to ensure interoperability
>> with clients that can not parse the Named Graph serialization, and
>> hence would be unable to parse the Annotation graph at all."
>>
>> Content Negotiation is defined by the http protocol, and the first
>> sentence seems to assume that Named Graphs must have http URIs. (Maybe
>> I'm wrong.  Maybe other dereferencable URI schemes can support http
>> Content Negotiation???).   OA has plenty of advice or requirements
>> about resources with http URIs, but this seems to be the only facility
>> in OA that can't be used except with http URIs.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> [1] http://www.openannotation.org/spec/extension/#NamedGraph
>>
>>
>> --
>> Robert A. Morris
>>
>> Emeritus Professor  of Computer Science
>> UMASS-Boston
>> 100 Morrissey Blvd
>> Boston, MA 02125-3390
>>
>> IT Staff
>> Filtered Push Project
>> Harvard University Herbaria
>> Harvard University
>>
>> email: morris.bob@gmail.com
>> web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
>> web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush
>> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
>> ===
>> The content of this communication is made entirely on my
>> own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
>> official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or
>> Harvard University.
>>



-- 
Robert A. Morris

Emeritus Professor  of Computer Science
UMASS-Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd
Boston, MA 02125-3390

IT Staff
Filtered Push Project
Harvard University Herbaria
Harvard University

email: morris.bob@gmail.com
web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush
http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
===
The content of this communication is made entirely on my
own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or
Harvard University.
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 22:12:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 May 2012 22:12:26 GMT